Virgobrown72 wrote:Ranges. Yep, believe or not, ranges. For my games, all ranges are broken down into :

Close CombatShort RangeMedium RangeLong RangeBallistic Range

All range modifiers still apply, and a weapon that can fire at one range can fire at all increments below it's own( For example, a scoped rifle can fire at long, medium and short) accept ballistic ranges, which are fired on a ballistic arc. This is FFF for role playing purposes for me, because I'm not trying to decide just how many meters away a target is in theiddlw of a rapid role playing session.

I love this idea. Just to make sure I understand (please correct):

1. Each weapon type has one of the above assigned to it (e.g, derringer or throwing knife might be Short Range;
2. It can shoot at that range or any lower range with NO penalty for distance
3. It cannot shoot higher than that range

OR

2. It can shoot at that range with no penalty
3. For each range increment above its intended range, it gets a (...) penalty of some kind

Virgobrown72 wrote:Ranges. Yep, believe or not, ranges. For my games, all ranges are broken down into :

Close CombatShort RangeMedium RangeLong RangeBallistic Range

All range modifiers still apply, and a weapon that can fire at one range can fire at all increments below it's own( For example, a scoped rifle can fire at long, medium and short) accept ballistic ranges, which are fired on a ballistic arc. This is FFF for role playing purposes for me, because I'm not trying to decide just how many meters away a target is in theiddlw of a rapid role playing session.

I love this idea. Just to make sure I understand (please correct):

1. Each weapon type has one of the above assigned to it (e.g, derringer or throwing knife might be Short Range;
2. It can shoot at that range or any lower range with NO penalty for distance
3. It cannot shoot higher than that range

OR

2. It can shoot at that range with no penalty
3. For each range increment above its intended range, it gets a (...) penalty of some kind

We ignore the instant stand from prone when attacked rule as well. We also fudge ranges, aoes, and facing, but only because we don't play with miniatures. Other than those things and some setting-specific house rules (basing thrown weapon ranges on the thrower's strength, removing Guts and just using Spirit, no-PP magic, etc) we play the game as written.

Virgobrown72 wrote:Ranges. Yep, believe or not, ranges. For my games, all ranges are broken down into :

Close CombatShort RangeMedium RangeLong RangeBallistic Range

I'm working on writing a new RPG and I did the same thing for my combat system. I used to love long lists of detailed weapons with specific ranges and slightly different damage values, but I realized that I never really use them in play. It always comes down to "small gun", "medium gun", "big gun", and "don't point that at my planet". When you're not using a map, making the GM think about precise yards/meters slows everything down but it's easy to describe distances as "far" or "close" or "melee range" or whatever. Even if the GM told you "he's 10 meters away" and you could picture 10 meters in your head, you'd be thinking of it as "fairly close" or "that's about as wide as this room" or other imprecise measurements anyway.

I decided that I don't want to play like a chess match: "I'm going to move three squares to Queen's Rook 4 then shoot that guy in the back on QR8, that's a range of 4 squares so my to hit penalty is..."

I want to play like an action movie: "I'm going to dive behind the couch then shoot at the guy who just jumped in through the window. The range is 'in the same room with me'."

Follow the development of my newest RPG project, The Impressionist System (formerly "Van Gogh"), at Wooden Pencil Sketches. (It's not about painting...)

This one, I felt the by-the-book rule encouraged taking anything you ever wanted to be able to do at d4. Now you can start out more skilled in your specialties, and pick up that other stuff cheaply as you advance.

Thunderforge wrote:All of us independently decided that we didn't like the rule that it takes a full advance to buy a skill at a d4 after character creation. So we ignore that and it now takes 1 skill point, just like at character creation.

I also don't allow automatic standing from prone if attacked in melee - IF you didn't drop prone willingly. I added some strength action/"tricks" of a sort for pushing people around or knocking them prone.

Old One Eye wrote:Thus far, I haven't seen a purpose for Heavy Armor/Heavy Weapons and dropped them.

So that a lucky pistol shot or punch can't destroy a tank.

I don't have any official tank stats, so I don't know what the suggested toughness would be.

However, homebrewing up some vehicles, I have a basic tank pegged with a toughness of 36 (24). If a double-tapping 9mm hitting with a raise dealing its 3d6+1 damage can scratch that monstrosity, I'm giving the player a high-five.

Granted, my homebrew method pegs cars, trucks, and things slightly tougher than the Explorer Edition, so my tank stats may or may not be higher than the norm.

Old One Eye wrote:However, homebrewing up some vehicles, I have a basic tank pegged with a toughness of 36 (24). If a double-tapping 9mm hitting with a raise dealing its 3d6+1 damage can scratch that monstrosity, I'm giving the player a high-five.

Be prepared to give a lot of high fives (9mm is AP 1). I saw 3 30+ damage rolls in my session last night, and the PCs only dealt damage 14 times.

Shooting an M1 Abrams with a pistol shouldn't have a prayer of doing anything (unless you open up a maintenance port and start shooting the engine directly, bypassing the armor entirely). Heavy Armor exists to remove that prayer, without having to make heavy weapons / armored vehicles super-stupid- damaging / tough.

"Got a problem? I've got the solution: Rocket Launcher.""Not against a Servitor.""... We're all gonna die."

Old One Eye wrote:Thus far, I haven't seen a purpose for Heavy Armor/Heavy Weapons and dropped them.

So that a lucky pistol shot or punch can't destroy a tank.

I don't have any official tank stats, so I don't know what the suggested toughness would be.

However, homebrewing up some vehicles, I have a basic tank pegged with a toughness of 36 (24). If a double-tapping 9mm hitting with a raise dealing its 3d6+1 damage can scratch that monstrosity, I'm giving the player a high-five.

Granted, my homebrew method pegs cars, trucks, and things slightly tougher than the Explorer Edition, so my tank stats may or may not be higher than the norm.

The advantage of using the Heavy Armor/Heavy Weapons is that you don't end up with huge numbers for damage and defense on these larger targets. So, instead of having to give things like tanks a toughness of 36 (which means the weapons they fire now have to be scaled up to something like 12d6 for another tank to have a decent chance of killing it).
Also, IIRC, Heavy Weapons ignore non-Heavy armor. So a cannon will ignore even platemail worn by a knight, but won't ignore the armor of a castle wall.
Star Wars D6 did the same thing by using a Scale Value for larger things (character, speeder, walker, starfighter, capital, deathstar). Granted, it didn't stop the amount of skill dice from getting insane, but it did keep the dice down on weapons.
Another thing, the fewer dice you roll, the more variable the result can become. Rolling 12d6 is going to roll right around average far more often than it will results farther away.

Clint wrote:What he said. It's not about a straight out sprint; it's about trying to move fast in the middle of a combat or chase where the character could get distracted, tripped up, etc.

It's also about game play. There's little to no tension to being able to automatically run X distance without any chance of "failure." A random roll adds the tension of "Will I make it to the bomb, enemy, last Mountain Dew, etc. in time???"

That's why when I used the d4+2 house rule I didn't just go with double move. The only problem I had was the bummer of burning an action to move 1 extra inch. That may be fast and furious but it isn't fun.

The only rule I flat out ignore is the shield facing rule. It's not fast, and it contradicts an earlier description of combat. If the combatants are moving around and circling each other when somebody is firing into melee, then why are we bothering to worry about what hand is holding the shield?

It's the same reason I hate the flanking rules in D&D 3 and 4. Why does my rogue need to be standing in the square opposite another player to get the back-stabbage-cabbage? I thought the combatants were moving around and circling each other and all of that. Stupid. Apparently they mean they are twirling their individual 5' areas.

I am surprised so many ignore encumbrance. For a game like Deadlands or something where armor wasn't important I might think about it, but I love the way Savage Worlds make encumbrance important...you can't be fully armored without being a strong person, which means sacrificing some other Traits which means you still have a weakness.

I mean, in some of your games out there I would be a Wizard with Arcane Resistance and the Armor spell, and wear full plate and helm. Why be a fighter?

"Games give you a chance to excel, and if you're playing in good company you don't even mind if you lose because you had the enjoyment of the company during the course of the game. "
~Gygax

Again, many of us are not IGNORING encumbrance - we are just being less formal - and perhaps a bit more generous - about it. I still use encumbrance - I just eyeball it rather than worrying about the exact accounting of it. I also impose minimum strength requirements for armor, so that Wizard of yours is still going to have to spread attribute points around if he wants a high enough strength to wear full plate (it's d10 for me) and still be able to carry anything else like gear or a weapon.

"It only takes an extra second to be courteous."
- Constable Benton Fraser